"Low Church" and "High Church"

Dennis Bratcher

Evangelical Protestants sometimes become offended
when they hear that they are from a "low church" tradition. Indeed, in
some cases those from more liturgical traditions use that term in a
pejorative way to mean "less sophisticated" or "uneducated." But then,
Protestant Evangelicals are not beyond throwing around the term "high
church" to mean "less spiritual than we." The fact is, neither term in
itself carries any of those negative connotations.

"Low Church" is a neutral term that simply
describes a type of worship that does not follow a prescribed order of
service, that does not follow certain liturgical patterns, and does not
make use of developed ritual, ceremony, or worship accouterments
like vestments. From Webster's Dictionary: "Low Church (1710) tending
esp. in Anglican worship to minimize emphasis on the priesthood,
sacraments, and the ceremonial in worship and often to emphasize
evangelical principles." By contrast: "High Church (1687) tending esp.
in Anglican worship to stress the sacerdotal [priestly], liturgical,
ceremonial, traditional, and Catholic elements in worship."

So the two terms simply describe attitudes, forms, or
theologies of worship. Those traditions that follow more priestly
models, ranging from Catholic to Anglican, or those that tend to follow
a more liturgical form of worship in which the service is structured
around a
Theology of Word and
Table, ranging from Lutheran to some Methodists, are
considered "high church." Many of the American-born traditions or those
that reacted to the formality of other traditions, such as the Quakers
and Puritans, adopted a “low church” approach to worship in which
spontaneity was emphasized in matters ranging from prayer to sermons.

The differences between these two approaches to
worship emerged from the Protestant Reformation. Many commonly
understand the Reformation to be a theological revival (from the
Protestant perspective) or a schism within the church over theological
differences (from the Catholic perspective). While that is certainly
true on one level, those theological differences were interwoven with
other issues, including the nature of worship. While the Protestant
confessions that emerged from the Reformation dealt with the theological
issues, they also attempted to define the church in distinction from
Catholic practices of worship that were seen at best as improper and at
worst as heretical.

This can be exemplified in the split
between Luther and Zwingli over this very issue. Zwingli thought that
Luther had not gone nearly far enough in breaking from Rome, while
Luther genuinely wanted only to reform the Church, not totally remake
it. This led to the two well known criteria for church practice. Luther
held a maximalist view that whatever was not specifically forbidden in
Scripture could be practiced by the Church in its worship. So he
continued many of the long established practices of the Church. Zwingli
took the minimalist view and held that only those things that were
specifically allowed in Scripture could be practiced in the Church.

Of course there were those like Menno
Simons who thought Zwingli had not gone far enough and so spawned the
Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, Mennonites). Invariably, some like
Jacob Amman thought Simons had sold out and moved still further
(Amish). The same thing happened in England as Cranmer followed Luther,
with more radical reactions from George Fox (Quakers) and the Puritans.

21.1. The light of nature
shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all; is
good, and does good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved,
praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and
with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of
worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his
own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the
imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any
visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy
Scripture. (The Westminster Confession)

In other words, this presents Zwingli's view of worship in
which only those practices that are specifically commanded in Scripture
or that have justification from Scripture in the practice of the early
church are acceptable as legitimate means of worship. In the context of
the Reformation, this was not only a working out of the principle of
sola scruptura, “scripture alone” as the basis for doctrine, but
also a direct attack on what was understood to be unbiblical practices
in worship in Catholicism. This included such things as Catholic mass
(as a reenactment of the death of Jesus), the multiplication of
sacraments, and the more elaborate aspects of worship that had developed
in the medieval period such as ornate vestments, incense, the
proliferation of statues, the use of scepters, crucifixes, etc.. Along
with this came criticism of opulent cathedrals and the call for more
simplicity in worship.

This laid the groundwork for what would emerge as “low church”
approaches to worship that attempted to return to a simplicity that was
assumed to be biblically based. It should be noted however, that
the return to a biblical basis for worship only went as far as the New
Testament church. Ignored in this “back to the Bible” approach to
worship were the very same elaborate rituals, priestly vestments, and
magnificent places of worship that were characteristic of much of Old
Testament worship, as well as that of first century Judaism. It
also ignores the rather obvious fact that Jesus himself as a first
century Jew participated in those rituals of worship in those places
without much condemnation (Jesus’ attack on the moneychangers in the
Temple was not an attack on the practices of worship conducted there or
on the Temple itself).

This reveals that there were other forces at work
in the Reformation than simply a recovery of the acceptable way of
worshipping God “instituted by himself.” In the concern to reject the
excesses of medieval Catholicism, this minimalist approach to worship
tended to invoke a subtle supercessionist approach to Scripture, which
assumed that only what was directly commanded in the New Testament
as a means of worship was revealed by God and therefore valid. In any
case, the rejection of any practice not specifically commanded in the
New Testament or practiced by the early church with biblical
justification solidly laid the groundwork for the development of “low
church” traditions of worship.

In another direction, the Anglican tradition also
rejected Catholicism, largely to reject the authority of the papacy over
the Church of England. But there were also both theological and
practical aspects.

It is not necessary that
traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at
all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the
diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be
ordained against God's word.

Whosoever through his
private judgement willingly and purposely openly breaks the traditions
and ceremonies of the Church which are not repugnant to the word of God,
and are ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked
openly that others may fear to do the like, as he that offends against
common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the magistrate,
and wounds the conscience of the weak brethren.

Every particular or
national Church has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies
or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all
things be done to edifying. (The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion)

This might be described as a maximilist approach to
worship, or what some have called a normative principle. That
is, while the minimalist approach viewed as acceptable in worship only
what Scripture directly commands, this approach tends to view as
acceptable in worship what Scripture does not directly forbid.

That what the Scripture
forbids not, it allows, and what it allows, is not unlawful, and what is
not unlawful, may lawfully be done. (Attributed to Matthew Parker,
Archbishop of Canterbury, 1566, by Henry Danvers, Innocency and Truth
Vindicated, 1675).

Some have termed this approach a via media, a middle way
between Catholicism and the more radical tendencies of Protestantism
toward individualism, innovation, and rejection of all church tradition.
It is from this preservation of traditional practices of worship but
within a decidedly Protestant context that “high-church” traditions of
worship emerge.

While the Anglican tradition, along with Lutherans
and other Protestant tradition, tended to gravitate to “high church”
forms of worship, even within those traditions the influence of “low
church” approaches came to be felt. John Wesley, the founder of the
Methodist tradition, was sometimes accused by his detractors of being
"low church" because of his field preaching and training of
lay-preachers outside the confines of normal church structure and
structures. But he vigorously defended against the charge. He
remained thoroughly Anglican and high church, while still continuing to
emphasize evangelical principles.

The Methodist church, especially as it grew in the
new United States, emerged as an interesting blend of low and high
church practices. Modern Methodism still preserves both approaches in
various congregations. Many American Presbyterians also managed to
retain features of both types of worship. However, the American
versions of both Methodists and Presbyterians that emerged in the
American Holiness Movement, along with Pentecostals, and others like
Quakers, Brethren, and Churches of Christ, intentionally chose to move to "low
church."

While there were certainly limits as to what might
be allowed in worship with the Anglican approach, such as practices
“repugnant to the word of God,” there is a great deal of freedom allowed
in worship both in accepting traditional practices and in adapting the
practices of worship to varying circumstances. There is an interesting
balance between practices accepted from church tradition and therefore
seen as a source of unity in the church, and the disclaimer that such
rules of practice are not decreed by God or Scripture.

. . . these orders and
rules ensuing have been thought meet and convenient to be used and
followed: not yet prescribing these rules as laws equivalent with the
eternal word of God, and as of necessity to bind the consciences of her
subjects in the nature of them considered in themselves; or as they
should add any efficacy or more holiness to the virtue of public prayer,
and to the sacraments, but as temporal orders mere ecclesiastical,
without any vain superstition, and as rules in some part of discipline
concerning decency, distinction, and order for the time. (Matthew
Parker, The Advertisements, 1566)

It is perhaps in this balance between a recognition
of the value of tradition in its role in unifying the church and
fostering some degree of commonality between various communions of the
Faith, and the allowance of adaptations of those traditions into
different circumstances and contexts that strikes the via media between
minimalist and maxamilist, between regulative and normative,
approaches to worship.

Low Church attitudes, especially among American
evangelicals, are often suspicious of structured worship, including
emphasis on the sacraments and observance of rituals such as the
Seasons of the
Church Year. Services are usually marked by an informality
in which the congregation participates in the service in various ways,
especially in prayer and testimony, which is often spontaneous.
Eucharist is generally celebrated infrequently and irregularly,
sometimes only observed once or twice a year or not at all.

Yet, there is a renewed movement in many
traditionally low church traditions to an emphasis on services of word
and table, especially among heirs of the American Holiness tradition
(see
Word and Table: Reflections on a Theology of Worship and
What Is Liturgy?). This seems to be an
attempt to reintegrate the two dimensions of a concern with the
sacramental and liturgical that is a part of Anglican and Wesleyan
heritage with the evangelical emphasis that is also a crucial part of
that identity.

Some criticize the modern Anglican/Episcopalian
tradition for collapsing the via media back into Catholic forms
of worship, and of being inflexible in allowing adaptation of worship
into different contexts. Yet it may well be that the spirit of the
Anglican tradition in trying to strike a balance between the value of
tradition and liturgical worship on the one hand with the changing
demands of a growing church and the dynamics of history on the other
will provide the revitalization necessary to overcome the debates over
worship in the modern church. Rather than a point of contention,
the growing influence of some aspects of more traditional forms of
worship may instead provide some sense of unity. It may well be
that rather than high church or low church, the Wesleyan tradition as
heirs of Anglicanism may provide Protestantism with a viable model of a
via media for worship as well as for theology.

For further Reading:

Robert Webber, Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail: Why
Evangelicals Are Attracted to the Liturgical Church, Morehouse,
1985.